[GA - Failed] Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction
Category: International Security | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Morover | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Aware that non-member-states outnumber World Assembly member nations by about 6-1, and the gap will only increase as time goes on.

Believing that, though the World Assembly cannot enforce legislature upon non-member-states, it can still cause significant difference through enforcing laws to member-states.

Acknowledging the efforts of past General Assembly resolutions that help establish laws regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Further Acknowledging that member-states of the World Assembly must have some form of protection against non-member-states, and many seek solace through weapons of mass destruction.

Concerned that, despite prior regulations to these weapons of mass destruction, that many states may use these weapons defensively, in the spur of the moment, in order to avoid destruction.

Believing that, though mutually assured destruction can be a good deterrent, it can be more harmful than beneficial.

Understanding that the increase in the use of more traditional weaponry may lead to a decrease in nuclear weaponry.

Hereby,



  1. Defines a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) as a chemical or nuclear weapon capable of causing damage resulting in the mass loss of life.



  2. Further Defines mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a last-ditch effort by a nation in war where they unleash these weapons of mass destruction on either a civilian or military area, with the knowledge that a return fire may happen, resulting in a chain of attacks via WMDs.



  3. Urges the member-states of the World Assembly to intervene in the case of MAD.



  4. Encourages members of the World Assembly to avoid retaliation in the form of WMDs in both offensive and defensive wars.



  5. Allows that, should reasonable threat be shown, member-states may use WMDs to prevent the destruction of their nation.



  6. Urges member-states to use conventional weaponry instead of WMD, in order to avoid MAD.



  7. Prohibits the use of automatic response systems to nuclear attacks.



  8. Grants the World Assembly Disaster Bureau permission to coordinate international cooperation to prevent the threat of MAD.
    1. Encourages the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to engage in diplomatic communications with member-states whose actions may lead directly to MAD, should it deem it appropriate to do so.

    2. Requires the World Assembly Disaster Bureau to report any individual whose actions have contributed to MAD to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
Prevention of Mutually Assured Destruction, while well meaning, is flawed and somewhat useless in application. The definition of Mutually Assured Destruction is not one synonymous with what players would be familiar with in real life, which leads to a misleading title. Furthermore, the proposal takes no steps to prevent its own defined version of MAD, therefore not achieving what it fundamentally sets out to do. The only binding clause is one that arbitrarily bans 'response systems' to nuclear attacks while never actually defining or specifying what it is banning. Due to this lack of clarity, non-lethal or even productive systems could be banned due to faulty interpretation because of the very open worded clause. Finally, this proposal creates a committee that collects and reports uses of MAD to the WAJC, despite it not being illegal. This indicates that the author is simply using this proposal as a stepping stone to push more constraining legislation in the future.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.
 
Last edited:
Against, simply because I feel a WMD should be further defined. There are plenty of weapons, such as, but not limited to, so called “Rods from God,” that are deemed disgusting for use and could be considered a WMD. Perhaps if the proposal were to clear that up and make sure it does not infringe upon national sovereignty, my position would change.
 
Maybe the author doesn't grasp the concept of MAD, or the limits of such resolutions. This is an odd way to tackle the issue in my opinion.

Against
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top